Recently, I reviewed the 2 kings of Disk Defragmentation software for Windows Home Servers: Diskeeper 2009 and PerfectDisk 10. These 2 programs are hot off the presses with new releases. Diskeeper in December 2008 and PerfectDisk in January 2009. I felt it was important to have these reviews focus on the individual programs including installation, user interface, and performance.
It is now time to see how they fare in a direct comparison of these aforementioned areas.
Installation:
There really is not much to say about installation. Both programs installed in about the same way. A necessary, but mundane, task to do for any program. Differences?
Diskeeper installed the necessary files automatically for installation in the console, PerfectDisk required me to copy the required folders to be appropriate location.
PerfectDisk installs the add-in outside the console, thus the console did not have to close after the add-in was installed. Diskeeper installs in the normal add-in manner, thus requiring a console restart.
Other than that, read through my individual reviews on the specific installation steps.
Winner:
Diskeeper by a nose, simply because it installed the program files where needed. PerfectDisk relied on the user to copy folders.
User Interface:
Diskeeper
Diskeeper groups the the program features into three distinct windows. They are well laid out and quite easy to navigate. Hovering over the icons along the top row opens up an associated tool tip, which is quite nice to help familiarize yourself with the various features in the beginning. Clicking on these icons opens a new window over the main console window. Kind of a cross between an all-console add-in and the desktop version.
This does allow Diskeeper to present more information than is possible if one has to maintain everything inside the console window.
PerfectDisk
PerfectDisk has grouped the various program features under 4 tabs located across the top of the program window. The first tab is named ‘Defragmentation’, and can seen in the following picture. This is where you can analyze, manually defragment, and view the properties of the various system drives. You can also set the various program options under this tab.
Overall, the layout of the console version of PerfectDisk is quite easy to navigate without being overwhelmed by trying to put too much information in front of you at one time. The one item that I feel needs to be rethought is the drive selection area under the ‘Defragmentation’ window. Inside the console, you have the ability to see only one or two drives listed at a time. In addition, the drive naming scheme is rather cryptic, which translates to not easily knowing which physical one is looking at. It would be nice to expand this section, at the expense of the graphical disk section, to show 3-4 drives at a time.
Please note that if you RDC to your WHS and open the main PerfectDisk program to the desktop, the increased space available to the program allows you to see more than what is in the console window. For many programs, it is quite a challenge to effectively place information in the limited space inside the console. For the most part, PerfectDisk does a nice job of this. In addition, you can have both the console version and the desktop version of PerfectDisk open at the same time.
Winner:
PerfectDisk, by a hair. This is quite subjective, but I simply like the interface better. PerfectDisk had a few glitches in the interface which Diskeeper did not have, so that is a plus for Diskeeper. In the end, I simply felt that PerfectDisk did a better job of placing the information in front of me.
For others, the layout of Diskeeper may be preferred. Like I said, this is quite subjective.
Performance:
Once installed, both programs are basically a set-and-forget program. As a result, the only thing that really matters in the end is how well do they work and how do they affect normal computer operations. The most pertinent tests that provided real-world tests (and one artificial test) that would affect normal computer operations for a WHS are as follows:
Client Backup: I ran a Manual Backup of my workstation. I followed this backup immediately another backup. I then ran a third backup while the defragmentation program was performing a defragmentation run.
Performance benchmark test:
I ran HD Tach on my system drive. With each program, I ran HD Tach three times, as I have found from previous tests that results can vary somewhat from test to test.
Artificial Torture Test:
I copied a single .VOB file (1,048,574 KB in size) over to an empty, unattached, drive on my WHS.
This drive is a WD1600JS 160 GB drive, as seen below. As can also be seen, this drive is attached directly to a SATA port on the motherboard.
I then ran a program that shotgun blasted this file all over the drive. I ran this program for a total of four hours.
The results are as follows.
Diskeeper
Client Backup: I ran a Manual Backup of this machine. I followed this backup immediately with another backup. I then ran a third backup while Diskeeper was performing a defragmentation run.
Run 2, Diskeeper not defragmenting:
Run 3, Diskeeper performing a defragmentation run:
Performance benchmark test:
With Diskeeper not defragmenting (and the background defragmentation feature of Diskeeper turned off):
With Diskeeper performing a manual defragmentation run on my system drive (and the background defragmentation feature of Diskeeper turned off):
With the background defragmentation feature of Diskeeper running:
Artificial Torture Test:
The following pictures provides a summary snapshot of the drive after running the fragging program.
Within a minute or so, Diskeeper had completed drive optimization, which gave me the following report of drive statistics.
There was very minimal improvement in fragmentation levels. I turned on the Boot Time defragmentation option, restarted the WHS computer and let Diskeeper perform this operation. The result was a very slight improvement in fragmentation levels. I performed a few more manual and Boot Time operations and the result was slight improvements each time. At this point, I turned on Automatic Defragmentation option to see what would happen. The result:
Total success! As noted below, manual defragging is not a through or effective defragging method in Diskeeper.
PerfectDisk
Client Backup: I ran a Manual Backup of this machine. I followed this backup immediately with another backup. I then ran a third backup while PerfectDisk was performing a defragmentation run.
Run 2, PerfectDisk not defragmenting:
Run 3, PerfectDisk performing a defragmentation run:
Performance benchmark test:
With PerfectDisk not defragmenting:
With PerfectDisk performing a defragmentation run on my system drive:
Artificial Torture Test:
The following picture provides a summary snapshot of the drive after running the fragging program.
While the following picture gives you a visual view of how the drive looked just after I started to defragment it.
20 minutes later, PerfectDisk had completed drive optimization, which gave me the following report of drive statistics.
Performance benchmark test results:
Client Backup:
Diskeeper: 27% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
PerfectDisk: 3% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Performance benchmark test:
Burst Speed:
Diskeeper: 22.5% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Diskeeper: 0% penalty running with the background defragmentation feature running
PerfectDisk: 3% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Random Access:
Diskeeper: 49% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Diskeeper: 0% penalty running with the background defragmentation feature running
PerfectDisk: 41% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Average Read:
Diskeeper: 716% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Diskeeper: 1% penalty running with the background defragmentation feature running
PerfectDisk: 267% penalty running while running a manual defragmentation run.
Artificial Torture Test:
Diskeeper: A combination of manual and boot time defragmentation runs did not defragment the file. Turning on background defragmentation defragmented the file in approximately an hour.
PerfectDisk: A manual defragmentation run defragmented the file in approximately 20 minutes.
Winner:
At first glance, it would appear that PerfectDisk wins hands down over Diskeeper. This is where one must understand that the 2 programs take quite different approaches on how to defragment a drive. PerfectDisk performs defragmentation on scheduled runs while Diskeeper is optimized to defragment drives in the background. Which is the reason I ran the HD Tach tests on Diskeeper both ways.
With Diskeeper, using background defragmentation methods, any performance differences between the programs are quickly minimized.
The winner: A toss up, simply because the 2 programs do the same function in such different manners. It simply becomes quite difficult to directly compare performance numbers.
Overall Winner:
Based on Installation and Interface, both programs edge each other out slightly. Installation may seem trivial, but if a program will not install, its value becomes zero. Interface is always an important feature, but one must remember that a defragmentation program is not something you look at very often. Once you have set the program features to your requirements, you may never look at the program again.
When looking at a product, cost is a major factor in the decision making process. Diskeeper will set you back $70 while PerfectDisk will set you back $50. PerfectDisk wins easily on cost.
Both programs do an outstanding job in maintaining your hard drives and keeping them running at optimal performance levels. So which one wins here? Both (or neither).
And finally, the overall winner? This may surprise you, but in my book the overall winner is:
Both! PerfectDisk wins on price, and performance when using traditional defragmentation methods. Diskeeper wins on the innovative use of its continuous background defragging feature, which makes it a true install-and-forget program. Using background defragmentation methods, any performance differences between the programs are quickly minimized.
In the end, it all depends on which of the features noted above is most important to you. You simply cannot go wrong with either program.
3. February 2009 at 9:21 am
Jim, think there’s a typo in there…”PerfectDisk performs defragmentation on scheduled runs while PerfectDisk is optimized to defragment drives in the background”.
You might want to update the article to avoid any confusion?! I blame Terry for not proof reading!
3. February 2009 at 11:17 am
Apologies if I’ve missed this in the comparison, but I believe that with PerfectDisk, $50 gets you both a PD license for your WHS and a one PC (making it even better value).
Does Diskeeper offer the same?
3. February 2009 at 11:29 am
PerfectDisk does include a license for your WHS and one PC, and there is also home site license for $100 that gets you a license for all the PCs in your homm, along with the WHS license.
One note of clarification – PerfectDisk does provide scheduling, but ALSO provides continuous background defragmentation if that floats your boat. The user gets to decide.
Thanks,
Joe Abusamra
Raxco Software, Inc.
http://www.perfectdisk.com
http://www.perfectdiskblog.com
3. February 2009 at 12:26 pm
First of all thank you for a very detailed and unbiased review. I just want to add that PD has Stealth Patrol which is kind of background defragmentation (with predefined time). Cheers
3. February 2009 at 12:32 pm
part 2 (sorry for this my bad)
and if you set this Stealth Patrol for 0 days, it will trigger defragmentation after predefined idle minutes, but I agree that DK background deftag. is “nicer”. Funny thing is even using totally different apprach the end result is (about) same.
BR
3. February 2009 at 1:00 pm
The PerfectDisk $99 WHS + 10 Professional licenses is what really pushed me over the edge
3. February 2009 at 1:11 pm
Great comparison Jim – there’s a lot of effort gone into the individual reviews and now this comparison. Thanks for doing the hard yards for us all.
3. February 2009 at 1:16 pm
Great review! Thanks for the well written article and all the effort you have put into the testing.
Since I use Diskeeper 2009 professional on XP, my $0.02: Diskeeper really shines in automatic defrag mode..it is truly invisible and set & forget. Therefore, I have not had to bother with a full manual defrag run so far…which is the way I like it
But I’ve noticed an option for ‘Disk Priority’ -to throttle the defrag according to disk I/O- under manual defrag properties which was unchecked by default. I don’t know if the WHS version has this option too; if it does, it may help in reducing the HD tach performance penalty during the manual defrag test.
3. February 2009 at 1:28 pm
I was a Diskeeper advocate for ten years until they introduced “activation”. I ditched them immediately, now being a happy Perfectdisk customer. For the $50, you get both the WHS version and a Pro version for a client. That’s a big plus!
3. February 2009 at 2:46 pm
+ 1 for Diskeeper
3. February 2009 at 10:45 pm
All I know is that I was getting DK-PD crossitis (new word!). It was quite a struggle, especially when I started to collate all the performance data!
3. February 2009 at 10:52 pm
For $50, PD provides 1 WHS and 1 client license.
For %70, DK provides 1 WHS license.
7. February 2009 at 9:23 pm
What a meaningless test! It’s not interesting in how many percent the server is slower while performing a whatsoever type of defragmentation. It’s interesting how many percent a fragmented server is faster after a defragmentation. Maybe it’s hidden somewhere in the plethora of screenshots but I didn’t find it it the text – so it is completely meaningless!
12. February 2009 at 12:09 am
Kind of agree with Mockmoon. I don’t care what happens when I open either program’s UI. I care about what happens a month after I’ve loaded these guys up and how all of my other programs are running because of the performance these programs have either maintained or boosted above and beyond. And in regards to the cost, I’m a firm believer you get what you pay for. Maybe PD is a great value… So was a Yugo, right? I want a real return for my dollar. Any long term (at least 1 yr) experience with either product?
18. February 2009 at 10:11 pm
PerfectDisk 10 also allows defragmenting in the background, as I recall, allowing the program to run only when the system is idle. I believe it is called “StealthPatrol”. Since PerfectDisk beat Diskkeeper in every respect except when Diskkeeper was running in a similar mode, I believe this should be evaluated for a fair comparison.
Other than that (rather significant) point I think your comparison was excellent and useful. But without it the comparison is misleading.
18. February 2009 at 10:43 pm
This whole concept of StealthPatrol is the biggest negative against PerfectDisk. From the PD website: “StealthPatrol feature lets you set up a defrag schedule that works with your busy life. Schedule defragmentation of your Windows Home Server to run seamlessly in the background only during system idle times.”
Based upon that quote, it defrags in the background during it’s normal defrag schedule. This is not the *true* continuous background defrag feature that DK has. Negative in that PD promotes this concept to combat DK. Perhaps I am wrong, but I certainly do not find ANYTHING related to StealthPatrol being a true continuous background feature.
I do not like deceptive marketing.
I do have to admit that PD wins in many areas, but since the method a defragging a drive is so different with each program, it became apparent that an apples-to-apple defrag comparison was not feasible.
19. February 2009 at 1:48 am
BTW, I am not trying to diss PD. Both products do a GREAT job keeping your drives in peak operating conditions. And PD is significantly cheaper and includes a workstation license.
A big plus for PD.
19. February 2009 at 12:03 pm
Jim,
I do not like deceptive marketing either, and we do not play that game. StealthPatrol DOES do true continuous background defrag, and also has more intelligence built in.. Why do you not think it does so? Since you preface your statement with “perhaps I’m wrong,” I think you have an obligation to do a bit more investigating before making accusations of deceptive marketing. I have another test for you — run both programs in extremely low free space conditions, check the conditions afterward, and you might have a different opinion of deceptive marketing.
Thanks,
Joe
27. February 2009 at 8:34 am
Since WHS can be used for data backup, I am loathe to jump into defragging it until I understand whether:
1. Defragging can be accomplished safely.
2. Defragging WHS disksets has positive consequences.
Perhaps the author might comment on this:
http://social.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/whssoftware/thread/67a19ef5-8da4-4070-8c7c-b0c5b902cd03/#page:1
It is unclear to me that the present WHS disk/data structuring has changed much from the timeframe of the discussion in the MS forum referenced above.
What came out in that discussion was (be sure to read it all) there’s really no need to defrag a WHS setup – indeed, one could possibly mess things up by doing so.
27. February 2009 at 11:09 pm
Hi MovieMan,
Like many of the responders at the WHS forum, I am unable to comment on the very technical aspects of the thread. My comments, tho:
1. This thread was started prior to the changes introduced in PP1. I will have to *assume* that some of the issues documented here were addressed.
2. Both Diskeeper and Perfectdisk have released new versions since the last post in this thread. Again, I will have to *assume* that the issues documented here were addressed further.
3. Regarding Ken’s last comment, I do have to agree that a “typical” may not see much of an increase in performance. I would have to guess that he means “typical” workstations. Servers are not a “typical” computer/OS, however. WHS falls into this category. As servers quite often get hammered with new files, files being deleted, many users, etc., performance gains due to decreased HD thrashing would seem to me to be beneficial.
4. The first time I installed one of these programs, file defragmentation was over 50%. That is what I would consider serious.
5. I have had both programs installed over extended lengths of time. Both performed flawlessly. Both programs currently indicate defrag levels of <1%.
In the end, I would not hesitate the use of either program. Both do the same job in different ways. The end result is the same: they work quite well. As such, cost and features are the main things to look for if you are considering a program like this. The one thing I know is that disk performance will degrade over time. Whether a user will notice the change is always a subject for debate.
The same could be said for other performance changes, i.e., overclocking. A real increase in performance or an artificial increase?
1. March 2009 at 2:03 am
Joe, you are playing deceptive marketing. I went to http://www.perfectdisk.com/products/home-perfectdisk10-windows-home-server/compare
You are stating that diskkeeper for WHS is $999.00! it is $70 as Jim noted!
You also show in chart that diskkeeper does defrag drives with less than 1% space, just like perfectdisk???
I also go to diskkeeper website for WHS and I see nothing deceptive that they say about perfectdisk. I could not find that they say anything about perfectdisk on their whole website. You should prove your statements about being deceptive just as you tell Jim to do.
While I don’t think Jim meant anything offense to you, your reaction and the evidence suggests maybe he was right.
4. March 2009 at 12:30 pm
Hi Sasha,
YOu are correct – actually, we also had our own price incorrect, listing it more than 7 times what it actually is. My reply to the deceptive remark was that statement that PerfectDisk does not do automatic background defragmenting and saying that by stating so we are trying to deceive. PerfectDisk does do automatic background defragmentation, so I was not sure (and still not) why the author came out saying we did.
Thanks,
Joe
4. March 2009 at 2:14 pm
Perhaps in lieu of “deceptive marketing”, I should have used “confusing feature description”.
As an example, I work in the pharmaceutical capital equipment market. There are 2 types of processing equipment for various aspects of this industry, batch and continuous. They are opposites, and when one attempts to use them together (continuous batch coater), there is a certain level of confusion. A coating machine is either a batch coater or a continuous coater. They cannot be the same.
The same is true of “scheduled” and “continuous”. A product is one or the other, not both. Perhaps it is not obvious to me, but everything I saw in PerfectDisk (including the StealthPatrol feature) was based on scheduled defragmentation times. Yes, StealthPatrol works in the background during those schedules times. “Schedule” does not equal “continuous”.
Perhaps I missed something here. But I never saw an option that positively stated “continuous background defragmentation”. As in not scheduled.
If you can enlighten me (and the WGS readers) on how to find and turn on this feature, I would love to hear about it.
And as I have stated previously, both PerfectDisk and Diskeeper are very fine programs that do the job. As in most competing products, a user chooses one over the other based on the feature set one desires or feels most comfortable with. And cost, obviously, which is where PD has a very distinct advantage.
4. March 2009 at 2:44 pm
I guess I will take “confusing” over “deceptive” – thanks…:) At least it gets rid of the intent issue…..
To enable StealthPatrol automatic background defragmentation, the user selects the AutoPilot Scheduling tab, then the StealthPatrol tab, and a quick Wizard guides you through setting it up. It is also described in more detail in the Help file (under Product Resources tab).
While I appreciate your analogy in your capitalequipment market, it is not the same. As a matter of fact, one of the advantages we have particularly in the enterprise space is that we DO offer both options — a schedule or automatic background defrag). Sometimes companies will use continuous modes for some systems, but do not allow that mode, for example, for mission-critical servers…they require a schedule. The point is, the user can use either a schedule or a continuous background method.
We have millions of users utilizing StealthPatrol, but I will take your word for it that we have a confusing feature description and see if we can improve it.
I apprecite and understand that you like both products. We always encourage people to try out and compare as well.
Thanks,
Joe
11. June 2009 at 8:12 pm
Based on customer feedback, starting with PerfectDisk 10 Build 110, Raxco has changed the installation method for PerfectDisk for Windows Home Server to make it easier to install and match how other Windows Home Server Console applications install.
Updated installation instructions can be found at http://www.perfectdisk.com/support/kb/804. Please note that the new installation method is only for PerfectDisk 10 Build 110 or newer.
21. August 2009 at 10:54 pm
ive ran both programs ran dk 2009 for 3 weeks as soon as i removed it and install pd 10 i noticed a HUGE speed of my system
12. September 2009 at 5:56 am
Hmm.. I tried both as well and didn’t have to copy anything when installing PefectDisk. It must have been an early faulty installer you got your hands on or something I dont know.
Anyway I’ve been using Diskeeper 9 (not 2009) for ages but recently after upgrading from XP-SP2 to XP-SP3 I get constant error messages so I tried both (Diskeeper 2k9 + PerfectDisk) and PerfectDisk wins in my book. Why? You can set it to defrag when the screensaver is active! Diskeeper got rid of that feature in their new releases and now they only allow this “auto background defragging”. Oh my god what a pain in the rear that thing can be as it goes off at the dumbest moments, especially when gaming. That’s an issue Diskeeper absolutely has to look into.
3. February 2009 at 10:42 am
Missed that one! Fixed